Texas Population Changes in Size Composition and Distribution 2000-2010

Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Md. Nazrul Hoque, Ph.D. Hobby Center for Public Policy University of Houston Email: mnhoque@Central.uh.edu Beverly Pecotte Institute for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research University of Texas at San Antonio 501 West Cesar E. Chavez Blvd San Antonio, TX 78207-4415 Table of Contents I. Abstract II. Introduction III. Changes in Size, 2000-2010 IV. Changes in Composition, 2000-2010 V. Changes in Distribution, 2000-2010 VI. Conclusions VII. References 1 2 5 7 17 34 36 I. Abstract Texas is one of most rapidly growing states in the United States. This paper examines the change in size, composition, and distribution of Texas population from 2000-2010. Texas population increased from 20,851,820 in 2000 to 25,145,561 in 2010. This is an increase of 4,293,741 persons between April 1, 2000 and April 1, 2010, leading the nation in numerical increase. Texas’ population also diversified extensively; the proportion of Anglo (non-Hispanic White) population has decreased from 60.6 percent in 1990 to 45.3 percent in 2010. The proportion of Hispanic population (Hispanics of any race) has increased from 25.6 percent in 1990 to 37.6 percent in 2010. In 2010, more than fifty-three percent of Texans are minorities (i.e., Black, Hispanic, and Others). The proportion of population 65 years of age and above increased from 9.9 in 2000 to 10.4 in 2010. Although Texas experienced population growth, it has also experienced population decline in certain age groups particularly among the Anglo working age population. Such change has important implications for education, labor force participation, health related issues and polity in Texas. Population growth in Texas has not been distributed evenly throughout the state. Some parts of the State have grown rapidly, some have grown slowly and other areas have declined. Texas may thus be expected to remain among those states with the largest numerical increase in population and to continue to be among the Nation's growing states in the coming years. Keywords: population, change, size, composition, distribution, diversification Hobby Center for Public Policy 1 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 II. Introduction The Population Census is one of the most important sources of demographic data. The primary aim of the census is to provide detailed data on the size, composition and distribution of the population through an accurate count of the number of people and households with their characteristics [1]. The decennial population census provides comprehensive data on the population at all levels of geographic and administrative units. Population counts for states, counties, and places are essential for planning different types of services, such as health care, education, employment, highways, water, and sewer. Planning for education and health services require accurate information on the number of persons by age (for services targeting children or elderly), sex, marital status, and place of residence. Population counts provide a basis for allocating resources between areas in relation to population size. For example, the federal government uses census data for program evaluation, to identify population in need of services and to distribute billions of dollars in federal, state, local, and tribal funds. Census data are used for the apportionment of representatives among the states for the House of Representative and to draw legislative districts [2]. Population counts are also necessary to provide denominators to compute many types of rates and ratios, such as birth rates, death rates, labor force participation rates, school enrollment rates, dependency ratios, sex ratios and also provide base line data for future population projections. According to the recent release of 2010 population census, Texas is one of the most rapidly growing states in the United States. The rate of population growth in Texas has exceeded that for the nation in every decade since Texas became a state. During Hobby Center for Public Policy 2 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 the most recent decade Texas’ population has increased by 20.6 percent while the U.S. population has increased by 9.7 percent (see Figure 1). Texas population increased from 20,851,820 in 2000 to 25,145,561 in 2010 [3, 4], which is an increase of 4,293,741 persons between April 1, 2000 and April 1, 2010, and leads the nation in numerical increase. During the same time, for instance, California’s population increased by 3,382,308 persons. In terms of percent population growth, Texas ranked fifth among the fastest growing states for the period 2000 to 2010 with an increase of 20.6 percent (see Figure 1 and Table 1). During the 1990s and 2000-2005, Texas was the second fastest growing state, in numerical terms (behind California), but has been the fastest growing state since 2006. Texas’ population also diversified extensively; the proportion of Anglo (non-Hispanic White) population decreased from 60.6 percent in 1990 to 45.3 percent in 2010, while the proportion of the Hispanic population (Hispanics of any race) has increased from 25.6 percent in 1990 to 37.6 percent in 2010. In 2010, more than fifty-three percent of Texans are minorities (i.e., Black, Hispanic, and Others). Hobby Center for Public Policy 3 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Figure 1. U.S. and Texas Population Change, 1860-2010 100 94.5 90 80 70 60 50 40 40.4 35.5 30 26.6 26.0 36.4 25.5 20 20.7 27.8 21.0 24.9 19.7 16.1 14.9 10.1 7.2 10 24.2 20.2 19.0 16.9 14.5 13.4 27.1 19.4 11.4 9.5 22.8 13.2 20.6 9.7 0 U.S. Population Texas Population Changes in any population group have important consequences for many social institutions; for example, for young populations more demand will be placed on building new schools creating new jobs and for older populations more demand will be placed on housing, health care needs and social services. The observed changes in Texas’ population, which is also occurring throughout the U.S., portends important shifts in Texas, e.g,, the student population, congressional seats, and the ethnic/racial composition of the labor market. For example, Texas gained four congressional seats due to its population growth during this decade. In this paper we examine in greater detail the change in size, composition, and distribution of Texas population from 20002010. Hobby Center for Public Policy 4 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 III. Changes in Size, 2000-2010 The size of Texas’ population has almost doubled in the past 30 years, increasing from 14.2 million in 1980 to 25.1 million in 2010. The growth of 4,293,741 persons between 2000 and 2010 represents the largest annualized increase of 421,230 persons per year in Texas’ history. The previous record increase was 3,865,310 persons or an annualized increase of 386,531 persons per year between 1990 and 2000 (see Table 1). The increase of 4,293,741 persons during the 2000-2010 period was equivalent to the total 2010 populations of Wyoming (563,626), District of Columbia (601,723), Vermont (625,741), North Dakota (672,591), Alaska (710,231), South Dakota (814,180), and Delaware (897,934) (see Table 1). Table 1: Total Population and Components of Population Change in Texas, 1950-2010 Year Population 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 7,711,194 9,579,677 11,196,730 14,229,191 16,986,510 20,851,820 25,145,561 Numerical Change 1,868,483 1,617,053 3,032,461 2,757,319 3,865,310 4,293,741 Natural Increase 1,672,522 1,402,716 1,258,881 1,815,699 1,922,037 2,304,208 Net Migration 195,949 214,337 1,773,580 941,620 1,943,273 1,989,533 Percent Change 24.2 16.9 27.1 19.4 22.8 20.6 Percent Change Due to Natural Net Increase Migration 89.5 105 86.7 13.3 41.5 58.5 65.8 34.2 49.7 50.3 53.7 46.3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, April 1 population counts for 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010. Texas' growth has been fueled by substantial natural increase (births minus deaths) and by net migration (in-migration from states in the U.S. and immigration from other countries of the world). For example, of the 4,293,741 population increase between 2000 to 2010, 2,304,208 was due to natural increase and 1,989,533 was due Hobby Center for Public Policy 5 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 to net migration, or in other words, 53.7 percent of the growth was due to natural increase and 46.3 percent was from net migration (see Table 1). Hobby Center for Public Policy 6 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 IV. Changes in Composition, 2000-2010 In the following sections we examine the changes in composition for Texas population. First we examine the changes in racial/ethnic composition and then we examine the changes in age and sex composition occurring in Texas population from 2000-2010. a. Change in Racial/Ethnic Composition, 2000-2010 Table 2 presents population change by race/ethnicity for the State of Texas from 2000-2010. During the 1990’s Texas’ rapid population growth was significant, but the racial/ethnic diversification of the population was even more substantial. Although Texas’ total population increased by 22.8 percent during the 1990’s, the Anglo (nonHispanic white) population increased by only 7.4 percent, the non-Hispanic Black population by 22.3 percent, the Hispanic population by 53.7 percent, and the nonHispanic Other population by 91.8. Since 2000, the Census Bureau has collected more detailed data on race/ethnicity which is not directly comparable with the 1990 Census. Therefore, in the following section we are only comparing 2000 and 2010 census data by race/ethnicity. Hobby Center for Public Policy 7 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Table 2: Population Change by Race/Ethnicity in Texas, 2000-2010 Percent Population Race/ Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino Non-Hispanic White Alone Non-Hispanic Black or African American Alone Non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Non-Hispanic Asian Alone Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone Non-Hispanic Some Other Race Alone Non-Hispanic Two or More Races Total Census Count 2000 Census Count 2010 Numerical Change 20002010 Percent Change 20002010 2000 2010 6,669,666 9,460,921 2,791,255 41.8 32.0 37.6 10,933,313 11,397,345 464,032 4.2 52.4 45.3 2,364,255 2,886,825 522,570 22.1 11.3 11.5 68,859 80,586 11,727 17.0 0.3 0.3 554,445 948,426 393,981 71.1 2.7 3.8 10,757 17,920 7,163 66.6 0.1 0.1 19,958 33,980 14,022 70.3 0.1 0.1 230,567 319,558 88,991 38.6 1.1 1.3 20,851,820 25,145,561 4,293,741 20.6 100.0 100.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, April 1 population counts, PL94-171 (machine-readable data files) The populations for 2000 and 2010 by race/ethnicity were derived by the authors from PL94-171 for each respective census year [3, 4]. During 2000-2010, the NonHispanic White Alone population increased from 10,933,313 to 11,397,345, the NonHispanic Black population increased from 2,364,255 to 2,886,825, the Non-Hispanic Asians increased from 554,445 to 948,426, the Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiians and Non-Hispanic Other Pacific Islanders increased from 10,757 to 17,920, the NonHispanic Some Other Race group increased from 19,958 to 33,980, and the NonHispanic Two or More Races group increased from 230,567 to 319,558. The Hispanic or Latino ethnic group, which can be of any race, increased from 6,669,666 to Hobby Center for Public Policy 8 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 9,460,921. A detailed discussion on racial/ethnic composition can be found at Chapter 8 of “The Methods and Materials of Demography” [5]. In terms of percent change, Asians gained the most (71.1); followed by Some Other Race (70.3), Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (66.6), and the Hispanic Population (41.8). As a result of these changes, the Anglo population proportion decreased from 60.7 percent in 1990 to 52.4 percent in 2000 and 45.3 percent in 2010. The proportion of Black population decreased from 11.7 percent in 1990 to 11.3 percent in 2000 and to 11.5 percent in 2010. The Hispanic proportion increased from 25.5 percent in 1990 to 32.0 percent in 2000, and 37.6 percent in 2010. The proportion of Other (the sum of all other Non-Hispanic groups) population increased from 2.1 percent in 1990 to 4.3 percent in 2000 and 5.6 percent in 2010. b. Change in Age and Sex Composition Age and sex are two of the most important variables in demographic analysis. Changing age structure can have profound impact on a society. A society with young population immediately implies the potential of rapid growth in population as well as continuing need for investment in education and employment while aging populations create concerns about the funding of pension and health services as well as diminishing labor supplies and ultimately population decline [6, 7]. Table 3 presents data for selected age groups by race/ethnicity for 2000 and 2010. The populations of 2000 and 2010 by age groups and race/ethnicity were derived by the authors from Summary File 1 (SF1) for each respective census year [8, 9]. As can be seen from Table 3, nonHispanic White population for working age groups 35-39 and 40-44 has decreased by Hobby Center for Public Policy 9 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 18.8 and 18.3 percent, respectively while Hispanic population has increased by 37.4 and 43.0, respectively. Total population under age 15 grew at 16.9 percent, nonHispanic White population declined by 7.3 percent, non-Hispanic Black population increased by 8.8 percent, non-Hispanic Asian increased by 69.3 percent, and overall non-Hispanic population grew at 1.3 percent, while the Hispanic population grew by 39.3 percent. The population aged 15 to 64 increased at a rate of 21.2 percent for total, for the non-Hispanic White 4.9 percent, for non-Hispanic Black 26.9 percent, for the non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native increased at a rate of 15.3 percent, non-Hispanic Asian increased at a rate of 66.9 percent, and Hispanic or Latino increased by 42.1 percent. The proportion of Texas population 65 years of age or older has increased from 9.9 in 2000 to 10.4 in 2010. For non-Hispanic White population the proportion has increased from 13.8 in 2000 to 15.4 in 2010, for non-Hispanic Blacks the proportion has increased from 7.4 to 7.6, for non-Hispanic Asians the proportion has increased from 4.7 in 2000 to 6.9 in 2010, and for Hispanics or Latinos the proportion increased only 5.2 in 2000 to 5.6 in 2010 (Table 3 panel III). Table 3 suggests that although Texas experienced overall population growth, it has also experienced population decreases in certain age groups and for some race/ethnicity classification. There population declines may be due to the fact of past decline in birth rates or recent net out migration for certain age and race/ethnicity groups. Hobby Center for Public Policy 10 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Table 3: Population by Age Group and Race/Ethnicity in 2000 and 2010, and Percent Population Change by Age Group and Race/Ethnicity from 2000 to 2010 Age Group Total NHWHTa NHBLKb NHAIAc NHASId NHNHPe NHSORf NHTOMg HSPh NHSPi Panel-I: Population in 2000 00-04 05-09 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ 1,624,628 1,654,184 1,631,192 1,636,232 1,539,404 1,591,522 1,570,561 1,688,883 1,633,355 1,416,178 1,194,959 896,521 701,669 610,432 532,176 424,034 267,950 237,940 641,049 688,712 733,846 735,945 663,358 707,160 750,170 895,239 934,537 852,528 758,476 595,720 471,013 420,016 378,798 315,649 207,823 183,274 189,048 210,835 210,846 203,918 182,726 185,654 186,214 202,734 192,674 158,566 118,911 82,688 64,696 55,447 44,882 32,795 20,757 20,864 4,176 4,768 5,131 5,422 5,213 5,312 5,218 6,297 6,419 5,726 4,963 3,542 2,408 1,601 1,169 736 420 338 40,366 38,000 37,380 40,025 44,767 59,340 57,045 51,779 47,070 41,484 33,381 21,683 15,202 10,888 7,522 4,559 2,385 1,569 848 961 861 920 1,155 1,124 1,032 892 855 652 502 313 203 163 127 67 37 45 2,665 2,583 2,124 1,772 1,596 1,538 1,442 1,418 1,303 1,071 826 528 322 261 186 144 87 92 32,192 25,853 21,908 19,835 17,790 16,868 15,114 15,967 15,161 12,992 10,568 7,588 5,536 4,298 3,422 2,575 1,545 1,355 714,284 682,472 619,096 628,395 622,799 614,526 554,326 514,557 435,336 343,159 267,332 184,459 142,289 117,758 96,070 67,509 34,896 30,406 910,344 971,712 1,012,096 1,007,837 916,605 976,996 1,016,235 1,174,326 1,198,019 1,073,019 927,627 712,062 559,380 492,674 436,106 356,525 233,054 207,537 00-14 15-64 65+ 4,910,001 13,869,284 2,072,532 2,063,607 7,364,146 1,505,560 610,729 1,578,781 174,745 14,075 50,520 4,267 115,746 411,776 26,923 2,670 7,648 439 7,372 11,816 770 79,953 137,419 13,195 2,015,852 4,307,178 346,636 2,894,152 9,562,106 1,725,896 Age Group Total NHWHTa NHBLKb NHAIAc NHASId NHNHPe NHSORf NHTOMg HSPh NHSPi Panel-II: Population in 2010 00-04 05-09 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ 1,928,473 1,928,234 1,881,883 1,883,124 1,817,079 1,853,039 1,760,434 1,763,587 1,694,795 1,760,467 1,674,869 1,422,924 1,174,767 853,100 619,156 477,245 347,206 305,179 610,478 640,006 662,761 691,216 712,673 747,123 697,070 726,869 763,177 892,899 925,580 835,567 731,861 556,163 408,705 325,066 244,459 225,672 216,545 220,631 227,184 245,431 224,189 217,385 209,143 209,916 205,196 215,408 201,357 159,951 116,115 76,524 53,193 39,375 26,156 23,126 4,446 4,915 5,640 6,367 5,675 5,482 5,159 5,590 5,745 7,069 6,889 5,648 4,637 3,041 1,905 1,201 695 482 65,555 68,688 61,662 59,456 68,633 82,237 84,977 92,772 79,929 69,141 59,808 50,507 39,760 26,357 17,708 10,901 6,268 4,067 1,351 1,397 1,393 1,574 1,944 1,769 1,573 1,362 1,258 1,170 1,023 761 586 322 189 123 80 45 4,026 3,411 3,373 3,184 2,892 2,825 2,645 2,278 1,933 1,947 1,703 1,431 935 579 357 203 142 116 49,401 42,064 36,488 30,203 23,796 22,217 19,384 17,566 14,840 14,801 13,553 11,019 8,481 5,716 3,922 2,693 1,929 1,485 976,671 947,122 883,382 845,693 777,277 774,001 740,483 707,234 622,717 558,032 464,956 358,040 272,392 184,398 133,177 97,683 67,477 50,186 951,802 981,112 998,501 1,037,431 1,039,802 1,079,038 1,019,951 1,056,353 1,072,078 1,202,435 1,209,913 1,064,884 902,375 668,702 485,979 379,562 279,729 254,993 00-14 15-64 65+ 5,738,590 16,805,085 2,601,886 1,913,245 7,724,035 1,760,065 664,360 2,004,091 218,374 15,001 58,261 7,324 195,905 687,220 65,301 4,141 13,020 759 10,810 21,773 1,397 127,953 175,860 15,745 2,807,175 6,120,825 532,921 2,931,415 10,684,260 2,068,965 Hobby Center for Public Policy 11 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Age Group Total NHWHTa NHBLKb NHAIAc NHASId NHNHPe NHSORf NHTOMg HSPh NHSPi Panel-III: Population in 2010 00-04 05-09 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ 18.7 16.6 15.4 15.1 18 16.4 12.1 4.4 3.8 24.3 40.2 58.7 67.4 39.8 16.3 12.5 29.6 28.3 -4.8 -7.1 -9.7 -6.1 7.4 5.7 -7.1 -18.8 -18.3 4.7 22 40.3 55.4 32.4 7.9 3 17.6 23.1 14.5 4.6 7.7 20.4 22.7 17.1 12.3 3.5 6.5 35.8 69.3 93.4 79.5 38 18.5 20.1 26 10.8 6.5 3.1 9.9 17.4 8.9 3.2 -1.1 -11.2 -10.5 23.5 38.8 59.5 92.6 89.9 63 63.2 65.5 42.6 62.4 80.8 65 48.5 53.3 38.6 49 79.2 69.8 66.7 79.2 132.9 161.5 142.1 135.4 139.1 162.8 159.2 59.3 45.4 61.8 71.1 68.3 57.4 52.4 52.7 47.1 79.4 103.8 143.1 188.7 97.5 48.8 83.6 116.2 0 51.1 32.1 58.8 79.7 81.2 83.7 83.4 60.6 48.3 81.8 106.2 171 190.4 121.8 91.9 41 63.2 26.1 53.5 62.7 66.6 52.3 33.8 31.7 28.3 10 -2.1 13.9 28.2 45.2 53.2 33 14.6 4.6 24.9 9.6 36.7 38.8 42.7 34.6 24.8 26 33.6 37.4 43 62.6 73.9 94.1 91.4 56.6 38.6 44.7 93.4 65.1 4.6 1 -1.3 2.9 13.4 10.4 0.4 -10 -10.5 12.1 30.4 49.5 61.3 35.7 11.4 6.5 20 22.9 00-14 15-64 65+ 16.9 21.2 25.5 -7.3 4.9 16.9 8.8 26.9 25 6.6 15.3 71.8 69.3 66.9 142.5 55.1 70.2 72.9 46.6 84.3 81.4 60 28 19.3 39.3 42.1 53.7 1.3 11.7 19.9 a = Non-Hispanic White Only b = Non-Hispanic Black Only c = Non-Hispanic American Indian and Alaska Native Alone Only d = Non-Hispanic Asian Alone Only e = Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone Only f = Non-Hispanic Some Other Race Alone g = Non-Hispanic Two or More Race h = Hispanic or Latino I = Non-Hispanic of all Race/Ethnicity The median age of a population is often used as a single indicator to describe a population as young or old. The median age divides the population in to two groups of equal size indicating that one half of the population is below the median age while the other half is above the median age. Populations with a median age under 20 years are generally considered young while those with a median age over 40 years are considered old [6, 7]. The median age of Texas population, like the U.S., is increasing. The median age in Texas population was 28.0 years in 1980, 30.8 years in 1990, 32.3 years in 2000 and increased to 33.6 years in 2010. The median age of the U.S. Hobby Center for Public Policy 12 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 population has increased from 35.3 years in 2000 to 37.2 years in 2010. In terms of median age Texas ranked 49th of the 50 states. The median age for the Non-Hispanic White population has increased from 38.1 years in 2000 to 41.3 years in 2010, for Hispanic median age has increased from 25.5 in 2000 to 27.0 years in 2010, for NonHispanic Black population increased from 30.0 to 32.1 years, and the non-Hispanic Asian population has increased from 31.4 years in 2000 to 34.1 years in 2010. In 2010, the median age in Texas Counties ranged from 24.5 years in Brazos County to 55.0 years in Llano County. Dependency ratios also provide simple summary measures to compare change in age structure for populations in two time periods. The ratios are based on a division of age ranges into three broad categories, such as children (0-14), working age population (15-64), and old age population (65 years and above). The child dependency ratio measures the number of children under 15 years of age for every one hundred persons of working age population (15-64). The aged dependency ratio measures the number of population age 65 and over for every 100 working age population. The dependency ratio is the sum of the child and aged dependency ratio. The overall dependency has decreased from 50.3 in 2000 to 49.6 in 2010. The child dependency ratio decreased from 35.4 in 2000 to 34.1 in 2010. However, the aged dependency increased from 4.9 in 2000 to 5.5 in 2010. The child dependency for nonHispanic White population decreased from 28.0 in 2000 to 24.8 in 2010 while aged dependency increased from 20.4 in 2000 to 22.8 in 2010. For the Hispanic population, over all dependency ratio decreased slightly from 54.9 in 2000 to 54.6 in 2010, the child Hobby Center for Public Policy 13 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 dependency decreased from 46.8 in 2000 to 45.9 in 2010, and aged dependency increased from 8.0 in 2000 to 8.7 in 2010. Demographers often use population pyramids as a technique to describe the pattern of age and sex composition of a population. Population pyramids are an elegant and useful way of presenting an age and sex distribution of a population graphically [1]. The changing age and sex composition of Texas populations are given in Figures 2a2b. Figure 2a shows the population pyramid for non-Hispanic white population, figure 2b presents the population pyramid for Hispanic or Latino population. The percent of males are on the left and percent of females are on the right side of the pyramid. The 2000 and 2010 pyramids are superimposed to make it easy to visualize the change between 2000 and 2010 by age groups and sex. Young populations are presented by pyramids with a broad based and high proportion of young children and narrow apex of older people (figure 2b). Older populations are presented by pyramid with a rectangular age profile with more uniform numbers of percent in each age group up to those where mortality is high (figure 2a). The proportion of populations below age 50 has declined from 2000 to 2010, while proportion above age 50 has increased during the same time both for Hispanic and non-Hispanic population. However, this pattern is more pronounced for non-Hispanic White population than Hispanic population. The population pyramid also suggests that the Hispanic population will keep growing due to their large numbers in young population groups. Hobby Center for Public Policy 14 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Age Group Figure 2a: Non-Hispanic White Population by Age and Sex, 2000 and 2010 95+ 90 - 94 85 - 89 80 - 84 75 - 79 70 - 74 65 - 69 60 - 64 55 - 59 50 - 54 45 - 49 40 - 44 35 - 39 30 - 34 25 - 29 20 - 24 15 - 19 10 - 14 05 - 09 00 - 04 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2010 Female 1.0 0.0 1.0 Percent of Population 2010 Male 2000 Female 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 2000 Male Age Group Figure 2b: Hispanic Population by Age and Sex, 2000 and 2010 95+ 90 - 94 85 - 89 80 - 84 75 - 79 70 - 74 65 - 69 60 - 64 55 - 59 50 - 54 45 - 49 40 - 44 35 - 39 30 - 34 25 - 29 20 - 24 15 - 19 10 - 14 05 - 09 00 - 04 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2010 Female Hobby Center for Public Policy 2.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Percent of Population 2010 Male 2000 Female 15 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 2000 Male Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Besides age, sex is another important measure of population composition. Sex is considered to be a biological characteristic that divides human beings into males and females and sex ratio is the principal measure of sex composition. The sex is usually defined as the number males per 100 females. A sex ratio of 100 would indicate an equal number males and females. In developed countries, the sex ratio at birth is typically around 105 males per 100 females. The sex ratio normally declines with age due to the fact that the mortality rate at every age is generally higher for males than females. The overall, sex ratio for Texas population declined slightly from 98.6 in 2000 to 98.4 in 2010. The sex ratio for the Hispanic population declined from 103.8 in 2000 to 101.4 in 2010, while the non-Hispanic White population increased from 96.8 in 2000 to 97.7 in 2010. As expected, the sex ratio is higher for younger age populations (i.e., under age 35 years) and lower for older age populations (i.e., 35 years of age and above). However, there is significant increase in sex ratio for age groups 70-74 for nonHispanic White population. A similar pattern is observed for Hispanic or Latino population and Asian population except for age groups 95 and above where there is decline in sex ratio. These variations in elderly sex ratios may be due to migration, since migrant have a tendency to return to their home country at later ages. Hobby Center for Public Policy 16 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 V. Changes in Distribution, 2000-2010 The distribution of populations in Texas are uneven, some regions are densely populated while others are sparsely populated. The change in population during 20002010 has not been distributed evenly throughout Texas either. Some parts of the State have grown rapidly, some have grown slowly and others have declined. In the following sections we examine the patterns of population growth for the Council of Governments regions, metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), counties, and cities and places in Texas. a. Population Change in Council of Governments Regions in Texas, 20002010 There are 24 Council of Governments (COG) regions in Texas (see Figure 3). The populations in 2000 and 2010 for Council of Governments regions were derived by summing the appropriate county populations. All twenty-four regions experienced population growth during the 1990’s. However, one region saw a decline in its population from 2000 to 2010 (see Table 4). In the 1990’s, the North Central Texas Region gained the most population (1,197,527), followed by the Houston-Galveston Region (957,308). During 2000-2010 period, the pattern changed; the Houston- Galveston Region gained the most population followed by the North Central Region. The population of the Houston-Galveston Region increased from 4,854,454 in 2000 to 6,087,133 in 2010. The population of the North Central Texas region increased from 5,309,277 in 2000 to 6,539,950 in 2010. The population of the Capital Area Region increased from 1,346,833 in 2000 to 1,830,003 in 2010. Hobby Center for Public Policy 17 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 In terms of numerical increase, the Houston-Galveston Region gained 1,232,679 persons, the North Central Texas Region gained 1,230,673 persons, and the Capital Area Region gained 483,170 persons from 2000 to 2010. The Nortex is the only Region that lost population during the 2000-2010 by 1,506 persons. Hobby Center for Public Policy 18 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Table 4: Population and Components of Population Change for Council of Governments Regions in Texas, 2000-2010 Council of Governments (COG) Alamo Area Ark-Tex Brazos Valley Capital Area Central Texas Coastal Bend Concho Valley Deep East Texas East Texas Golden Crescent Heart of Texas HoustonGalveston Lower Rio Grande Valley Middle Rio Grande Nortex North Central Texas Panhandle Permian Basin Rio Grande South East Texas South Plains South Texas Texoma West Central Texas Percent Change Due To Natural Net Increase Migration 20002000-2010 2010 39.2 60.8 52.1 47.9 36.9 63.1 35.6 64.4 62.3 37.7 175 -75 106.4 -6.4 441,143 11,479 52,362 483,170 75,123 22,975 5,980 Percent Change 20002010 24.4 4.2 19.6 35.9 20.1 4.2 4 Natural Increase 20002010 172,878 5,976 19,331 172,113 46,834 40,197 6,365 378,477 22,615 6.4 8,493 14,122 37.6 62.5 745,180 829,749 84,569 11.3 26,804 57,765 31.7 68.3 183,905 188,626 4,721 2.6 9,355 -4,634 198.2 -98.2 321,536 349,273 27,737 8.6 14,313 13,424 51.6 48.4 4,854,454 6,087,133 1,232,679 25.4 614,041 618,638 49.8 50.2 924,772 1,203,123 278,351 30.1 199,136 79,215 71.5 28.5 154,381 167,010 12,629 8.2 18,762 -6,133 148.6 -48.6 Census Count 2000 Census Count 2010 Numerical Change 2000-2010 1,807,868 270,468 267,085 1,346,833 374,518 549,012 148,212 2,249,011 281,947 319,447 1,830,003 449,641 571,987 154,192 355,862 Net Migration 2000-2010 268,265 5,503 33,031 311,057 28,289 -17,222 -385 224,366 222,860 -1,506 -0.7 5,875 -7,381 -390.1 490.1 5,309,277 6,539,950 1,230,673 23.2 663,883 566,790 53.9 46.1 402,862 376,672 704,318 427,927 417,679 825,913 25,065 41,007 121,595 6.2 10.9 17.3 27,417 32,695 101,585 -2,352 8,312 20,010 109.4 79.7 83.5 -9.4 20.3 16.5 385,090 388,745 3,655 0.9 13,360 -9,705 365.5 -265.5 377,871 264,177 178,200 411,659 330,590 193,229 33,788 66,413 15,029 8.9 25.1 8.4 29,295 63,070 4,381 4,493 3,343 10,648 86.7 95 29.2 13.3 5 70.9 324,901 327,390 2,489 0.8 8,049 -5,560 323.4 -223.4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, April 1 population counts, PL94-171 (machine-readable data files) The fastest growing regions during 2000-2010 have been the Capital Area with a 35.9 percent increase, it was followed by the Lower Rio Grande Valley with an increase of 30.1 percent, Houston-Galveston with an increase of 25.4 percent, South Texas with a 25.1 percent, and North Central Texas with a 23.2 percent increase. The slowest growing regions have been the West Central Texas with a 0.8 percent increase, followed by South East Texas with an increase of 0.9 percent, Golden Crescent with 2.6 percent, and Ark-Tex with a 4.2 percent increase. Hobby Center for Public Policy 19 In general, the fastest growing Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 regions are either in the central corridor of Texas or along the Texas-Mexico Border. The slowest growing regions are in the Panhandle and East Texas. As mentioned before, Nortex is the only region that lost population during 2000-2010 period. Population change results from natural increase and/or net migration. If these factors are examined in conjunction with the data on total population change, several important patterns emerge. An examination of the data in Table 4 indicates that 16 Council of Governments regions have experienced net in-migration while 8 have experienced out-migration from 2000 to 2010. The Coastal Bend COG lost the most population due to out-migration (17,222), and it was followed by South East (9,705), Nortex (7,381), Middle Rio Grande (6,133), and West Central Texas (5,560). The regions with the largest number of in-migrants during 2000-2010 are Houston-Galveston with net in-migration of 618,638 persons, followed by the North Central Texas region with net in-migration of 566,790, the Capital Area with net in-migration of 311,057, and the Alamo Area with net in-migration of 268,265. Hobby Center for Public Policy 20 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 In terms of percent net migration during 2000-2010, the fastest growing areas (due to annualized migration) were the Capital Area with a rate of 2.37 percent, followed by the North Central Texas region (1.31 percent), Houston-Galveston (1.26 percent), and the Alamo Area (1.23 percent). The fastest declining COGs are Coastal Bend followed by Rio Grande and South East Texas. Data in Table 4 also suggests that natural increase played an important role in population growth for the South Texas, Lower Rio Grande Valley, and Central Texas regions. For example, 95.0 percent of the population growth for the South Texas COG was due to natural increase, 71.5 percent in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, and 62.3 percent for Central Texas. Natural increase also plays an important role in Coastal Hobby Center for Public Policy 21 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Bend, Concho Valley, Golden Crescent, Middle Rio Grande, Panhandle, Permian Basin, Rio Grande, and South Plains. Without natural increase all of these COGs would have lost population during 2000-2010. b. Population Change in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Texas Counties, 2000-2010 Post-2000 patterns of population change varied significantly by Metropolitan status, with higher rates of change in metropolitan suburban counties followed by metropolitan central city counties, 40.3 and 18.2 percent, respectively (see Table 5). Nonmetropolitan nonadjacent counties did better than nonmetropolitan adjacent counties. Nonmetropolitan nonadjacent counties grew by 5.2 percent compared with 20.6 percent for the State and 40.3 percent for the metropolitan suburban counties. As a result, the proportions of people living in metropolitan central city counties decreased from 67.1 percent in 2000 to 65.7 percent in 2010. In contrast, the proportion of people living in metropolitan suburban counties increased from 18.9 in 2000 to 22.0 in 2010, the proportion residing in nonmetropolitan adjacent counties decreased from 11.1 to 9.7, and nonmetropolitan nonadjacent counties decreased from 2.8 to 2.5 (metropolitan and central city counties are as defined in 2003 by the Office of Management and Budget) [10]. Hobby Center for Public Policy 22 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Table 5: Population and Components of Population Change in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Counties in Texas, 2000-2010 Percent Change Due To Metropolitan Status Metropolitan Central City Counties Metropolitan Suburban Counties Nonmetropolitan Adjacent Counties Nonmetropolitan Nonadjacent Counties Census Count 2000 Census Count 2010 Numerical Change 2000-2010 Percent Change 20002010 13,993,705 16,543,223 2,549,518 18.2 1,786,534 762,984 70.1 29.9 3,950,843 5,541,946 1,591,103 40.3 411,372 1,179,731 25.9 74.1 2,315,507 2,436,458 120,951 5.2 79,759 41,192 65.9 34.1 591,765 623,934 32,169 5.4 26,543 5,626 82.5 17.5 Natural Increase 2000-2010 Net Migration 2000-2010 Natural Increase 2000-2010 Net Migration 2000-2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, April 1 population counts, PL94-171 (machine-readable data files) Metropolitan areas had the greatest population growth in Texas, with the highest rates of net migration in metropolitan suburban counties (1,179,731 persons), followed by central city counties (762,984 persons). More than seventy-four percent of the population growth in metropolitan suburban counties was due to net migration while natural increase accounted for only 26 percent of the change. In contrast, the central city counties in metropolitan areas realized only 30 percent of their growth from net migration and 70 percent was due to natural increase. In all nonmetropolitan counties, the population change due to natural increase was greater than the net migration. The census populations in 2010 for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan Texas were derived by the authors by summing the appropriate county populations. Hobby Center for Public Policy 23 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 c. Population Change in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA’s) in Texas, 2000-2010 The patterns of population change in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) are shown in Table 6. All comparisons are made using the 2003 definition for Metropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by the Office of Management and Budget [10]. All 25 metropolitan areas experienced population growth during the 1990s; one metropolitan area lost population during 2000-2010. The largest numerical increases occurred in the largest metropolitan areas; Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington increased by 1,210,229, Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown increased by 1,231,393, Austin-Round Rock increased by 466,526, and San Antonio increased by 430,805. Wichita Falls is the only Texas MSA that lost population during 2000-2010. In terms of percent population change from 2000 to 2010, the Austin-Round Rock MSA showed the largest gain, with an increase of 37.3 percent, followed by the McAllen-Edinburg-Pharr MSA (36.1 percent), Laredo MSA (29.6 percent), HoustonSugar Land-Baytown (26.1 percent), and San Antonio (25.2 percent). The slowest growing MSAs were Beaumont-Port Arthur 0.9 percent, Abilene (3.1 percent), Victoria (3.3 percent), and Texarkana 3.6 percent). Wichita Falls is the only MSA that lost population by 0.1 percent. Hobby Center for Public Policy 24 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Table 6: Population and Components of Population Change in Metropolitan Statistical Areas in Texas, 2000-2010 Percent Change Due to Metropolitan Statistical Area Abilene Amarillo Austin-Round Rock Beaumont-Port Arthur BrownsvilleHarlingen College Station-Bryan Corpus Christi Dallas-Fort WorthArlington El Paso Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown KilleenTemple-Fort Hood Laredo Longview Lubbock Mc-AllenEdinburg-Pharr Midland Odessa San Angelo San Antonio ShermanDenison Texarkana Tyler Victoria Waco Wichita Falls Census Count 2000 Census Count 2010 Numerical Change 2000-2010 160,245 226,522 165,252 249,881 5,007 23,359 Percent Change 20002010 3.1 10.3 1,249,763 1,716,289 466,526 385,090 388,745 335,227 Natural Increase 2000-2010 Net Migration 2000-2010 Natural Increase 2000-2010 Net Migration 2000-2010 8,638 17,149 -3,631 6,210 172.5 73.4 -72.5 26.6 37.3 172,258 294,268 36.9 63.1 3,655 0.9 13,360 -9,705 365.5 -265.5 406,220 70,993 21.2 63,650 7,343 89.7 10.3 184,885 228,660 43,775 23.7 17,494 26,281 40 60 403,280 428,185 24,905 6.2 30,955 -6,050 124.3 -24.3 5,161,544 6,371,773 1,210,229 23.4 659,311 550,918 54.5 45.5 679,622 800,647 121,025 17.8 99,545 21,480 82.3 17.8 4,715,407 5,946,800 1,231,393 26.1 607,899 623,494 49.4 50.6 330,714 405,300 74,586 22.6 46,969 27,617 63 37 193,117 194,042 249,700 250,304 214,369 284,890 57,187 20,327 35,190 29.6 10.5 14.1 49,069 9,119 20,680 8,118 11,208 14,510 85.8 44.9 58.8 14.2 55.1 41.2 569,463 774,769 205,306 36.1 132,960 72,346 64.8 35.2 116,009 121,123 105,781 1,711,703 136,872 137,130 111,823 2,142,508 20,863 16,007 6,042 430,805 18 13.2 5.7 25.2 10,984 13,466 6,181 172,777 9,879 2,541 -139 258,028 52.7 84.1 102.3 40.1 47.4 15.9 -2.3 59.9 110,595 120,877 10,282 9.3 3,258 7,024 31.7 68.3 89,306 174,706 111,663 213,517 151,524 92,565 209,714 115,384 234,906 151,306 3,259 35,008 3,721 21,389 -218 3.6 20 3.3 10 -0.1 2,116 12,037 7,849 13,897 6,285 1,143 22,971 -4,128 7,492 -6,503 64.9 34.4 210.9 65 -2883 35.1 65.6 -110.9 35 2983 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, April 1 population counts, PL94-171 (machine-readable data files) Of the 25 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 6 showed a net increase due to migration during the post-2000 period. The level of net migration and the extent to which migration accounted for population growth varies widely among the metropolitan areas. The highest rates of net migration have been in Austin-Round Rock with an annualized rate of 2.4 percent, San Antonio (1.5 percent), College Station-Bryan (1.4 percent), and Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown (1.3). Hobby Center for Public Policy 25 For seven metropolitan areas, Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 (Sherman-Denison (68.3), Austin Round-Rock (63.1), Tyler (65.6), College StationBryan (60.0), San Antonio (59.9), Longview (55.1), and Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown (50.6 percent), more than 50 percent of their total population growth from 2000 to 2010 has been due to net in-migration. During the same period, six metropolitan areas (Abilene, Beaumont-Port Arthur, Corpus Christi, San Angelo, Victoria, and Wichita Falls) experienced net out-migration. Finally, the data in Table 6 suggest that for Metropolitan Statistical Areas, as was the case for Council of Governments regions, the fastest growing areas are generally those which have had both extensive natural increase and net in-migration. Natural increase played an important role in population growth for the following MSAs: Brownsville-Harlingen (89.7 percent), Laredo (85.8 percent), El Paso (82.3 percent), and more than 100 percent of the growth in Corpus Christi, Abilene, San Angelo, Victoria, and Beaumont-Port Arthur was due to natural increase. Clearly, although many of the State's metropolitan areas have experienced relatively rapid net inmigration, natural increase is still an essential element in the growth of rapidly growing areas. Some metropolitan areas would have experienced population decline if they did not have extensive natural increase, such as Abilene, Corpus Christi, El Paso, Odessa, San Angelo, and Victoria. d. Population Change in Counties in Texas, 2000-2010 There are 254 counties in Texas and it is not feasible to describe patterns of population change for individual counties. In this section we summarize general patterns of population change evident across counties during the 1990s and in the Hobby Center for Public Policy 26 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 2000-2010 period. Due to space limitations we have provided data for the ten fastest growing and declining counties (see Table 7). Detailed data for all counties on population change can be obtained from Texas State Data Center or from the authors and also from the PL94-171 for respective census year [3, 4]. Table 7: Population and Components of Population Change for Counties in Texas, 2000-2010 Ranked by Numerical Change, 2000-2010 Rank County Census Count 2000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 Harris Tarrant Bexar Collin Fort Bend Denton Travis Hidalgo Williamson Montgomery Wilbarger Dawson Matagorda Pecos Floyd Duval Red River Hutchinson San Patricio Orange 3,400,578 1,446,219 1,392,931 491,675 354,452 432,976 812,280 569,463 249,967 293,768 14,676 14,985 37,957 16,809 7,771 13,120 14,314 23,857 67,138 84,966 Census Count 2010 Numerical Change 2000-2010 4,092,459 1,809,034 1,714,773 782,341 585,375 662,614 1,024,266 774,769 422,679 455,746 13,535 13,833 36,702 15,507 6,446 11,782 12,860 22,150 64,804 81,837 691,881 362,815 321,842 290,666 230,923 229,638 211,986 205,306 172,712 161,978 -1,141 -1,152 -1,255 -1,302 -1,325 -1,338 -1,454 -1,707 -2,334 -3,129 Percent Change 20002010 20.3 25.1 23.1 59.1 65.1 53 26.1 36.1 69.1 55.1 -7.8 -7.7 -3.3 -7.7 -17.1 -10.2 -10.2 -7.2 -3.5 -3.7 Natural Increase 20002010 473,253 180,312 153,587 78,941 47,937 66,779 112,867 132,960 41,011 32,186 282 648 1,915 1,094 325 697 -618 657 6,003 2,097 Net Migration 2000-2010 218,628 182,503 168,255 211,725 182,986 162,859 99,119 72,346 131,701 129,792 -1,423 -1,800 -3,170 -2,396 -1,650 -2,035 -836 -2,364 -8,337 -5,226 Percent Change Due To Net Natural Migration 200020002010 2010 68.4 31.6 49.7 50.3 47.7 52.3 27.2 72.8 20.8 79.2 29.1 70.9 53.2 46.8 64.8 35.2 23.8 76.3 19.9 80.1 -24.7 124.7 -56.3 156.3 -152.6 252.6 -84 184 -24.5 124.5 -52.1 152.1 42.5 57.5 -38.5 138.5 -257.2 357.2 -67 167 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, April 1 population counts, PL94-171 (machine-readable data files) The seven most populous counties contained, in combination, more than 50 percent of Texas’ total population in 2010. Harris County remains the most populous county with almost 4.1 million people, accounting for 16.3 percent of the State’s population. Dallas, with 2.4 million people, was the second most populous county, accounting for 9.4 percent of the State’s total population. Tarrant was the third largest Hobby Center for Public Policy 27 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 county with 1.8 million population, or 7.2 percent of the total population. The two hundred least populous counties account for only 13.5 percent of Texas’ total population. The largest numerical increases in population from 2000 to 2010 were in the counties with the largest populations including Harris County with an increase of 691,880, Tarrant County with an increase of 362,815, Bexar County with an increase of 321,842, Collin County with an increase of 290,666, Fort Bend County with an increase of 230,923, and Denton with an increase of 229,638. Orange County lost the most population (3,129), followed by San Patricio County (2,334), Hutchinson County (1,707), Red River County (1,454), Duval County (1,338), and Floyd County (1,325). The largest percentage increases were in Rockwall County with an increase of 81.8 percent, Williamson County with a 69.1 percent increase, Fort Bend County with 65.1 percent, Hays County with 61.0 percent, Collin County with an increase of 59.1 percent, Montgomery County with 55.1 percent, and Denton County 53.0 percent. Some counties lost population, including Cottle County (21.0 percent), followed by King County (19.7 percent), Culberson County (19.4 percent), and Sterling County (17.9 Percent). Twenty-two Counties lost 10 percent or more of their population during the 2000-2010 period. In general, as shown in Figure 4, the fastest rates of growth were in Central Texas, North Central Texas, South Texas, and the Gulf Coast areas of the State with the slowest rates of growth in West Texas and the Panhandle areas of the State. Hobby Center for Public Policy 28 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Net in-migration is also an important factor in population growth, and presents challenges for a population as opposed to natural increases. Collin County gained the most population due to net in-migration in 1990-2000 and in 2000-2010 gained the second most population due to net in-migration, (180,672) and (211,725), respectively. Harris County gained the second most population due to net in-migration in 1990-2000, but during 2000-2010 gained the most population due to net in-migration, (180,560) and (218,628), respectively. The following counties gained population due to net in- migration during the 2000-2010 period: Fort Bend County (182,986), followed by Tarrant County (182,503), Bexar (168,255), Denton (162,859), Williamson (131,701), and Montgomery (129,792). Hobby Center for Public Policy Among Texas’ largest counties, only Dallas County lost 29 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 population due to out-migration (141,345) during 2000-2010. Other important out- migration counties include Jefferson (9,169), followed by San Patricio (8,337), and Wichita (6,272). The highest rates of net in-migration were observed in Rockwall County with 69.3 percent, followed by Williams County (52.7 percent), Fort Bend County (51.6 percent), and Hays County (48.9 percent). Among the counties with rates of net outmigration, the highest rates were in Culberson County (26.1 percent), Cochran County (22.1 percent), and Floyd County (21.9 percent). Figure 5 provides a graphical view of the rates of net migration in Texas counties. In general, the data in this figure show a relatively similar pattern as found in Figures 3 and 4, with counties having higher levels of net in-migration in Central and lower levels of in-migration in West Texas. Hobby Center for Public Policy 30 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Nevertheless, population growth from 2000 to 2010 has slowed compared to the 1990s when one examines the number of counties in Texas that have shown growth and increased net migration during 2000-2010. From 1990 to 2000, 68 counties experienced population decline and 89 counties experienced net outmigration (meaning that 21 counties had sufficient natural increase to offset population loss due to net outmigration). From 2000 to 2010, the number of counties with population decline was 88 and the number of counties with net outmigration was 119. This clearly suggests that during the 2000-2010 period, population growth in Texas has slowed compared with changes experienced during the 1990s. e. Population Change in Places in Texas, 2000-2010 Population change has also impacted the places and cities of Texas during 20002010. Given that there are more than 1,500 places in Texas, population change for individual places cannot be discussed in detail, therefore only general population patterns for Texas cities and places will be described. For convenience, we have provided data for the ten fastest growing and declining cities/places in Table 8. Detailed data on population change for places can be obtained from the Texas State Data Center or the authors. The census population of 2000 and 2010 for cities/places are from PL94-171machine readable files for each census year [3, 4]. In examining these data, it is important to note that some places may have shown growth or decline through boundary changes (i.e., annexation, de-annexation) and or changes in institutional population (i.e., college dormitories, prisons, nursing home etc.) from 2000 to 2010. Hobby Center for Public Policy 31 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 Table 8: Population and Components of Population Change for Places in Texas, 2000-2010 Ranked by Numerical Change, 2000-2010 Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 City/Place Fort Worth city San Antonio city Houston city Austin City El Paso city Frisco city McKinney city Laredo city Pearland city Grand Prairie city Bolivar Peninsula CDP La Victoria CDP North Escobares CDP La Rosita CDP Laredo Ranchettes CDP Palmhurst city Port Arthur city Fort Hood CDP Windemere CDP Galveston city Percent Change Due To Net Natural Migration 200020002010 2010 Census Count 2000 Census Count 2010 Numerical Change 2000-2010 Percent Change 20002010 Natural Increase 20002010 Net Migration 20002010 534,694 741,206 206,512 38.6 77,958 128,554 37.7 62.3 1,150,535 1,327,407 176,872 15.4 145,421 31,451 82.2 17.8 1,953,631 667,631 563,662 33,714 54,369 177,318 37,640 2,099,451 790,390 649,121 116,989 131,117 236,091 91,252 145,820 122,759 85,459 83,275 76,748 58,773 53,612 7.5 18.4 15.2 247 141.2 33.1 142.4 352,227 105,071 90,070 14,739 14,650 47,685 10,175 -206,407 17,688 -4,611 68,536 62,098 11,088 43,437 241.5 85.6 105.4 17.7 19.1 81.1 19 -141.5 14.4 -5.4 82.3 80.9 18.9 81 127,427 175,396 47,969 37.6 18,480 29,489 38.5 61.5 - - - - - - - - 3,853 2,417 -1,436 -37.3 -322 -1,114 22.4 77.6 1,683 171 -1,512 -89.8 83 -1,595 -5.5 105.5 1,692 118 -1,574 -93 114 -1,688 -7.2 107.2 1,729 85 -1,644 -95.1 89 -1,733 -5.4 105.4 1,845 22 -1,823 -98.8 128 -1,951 -7 107 4,872 2,607 -2,265 -46.5 428 -2,693 -18.9 118.9 57,755 53,818 -3,937 -6.8 2,260 -6,197 -57.4 157.4 33,711 29,589 -4,122 -12.2 5,037 -9,159 -122.2 222.2 6,868 1,037 -5,831 -84.9 551 -6,382 -9.4 109.4 57,247 47,743 -9,504 -16.6 2,465 -11,969 -25.9 125.9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, April 1 population counts, PL94-171 (machine-readable data files) From 2000 to 2010, 929 of the 1,485 places showed population gains, while 551 places lost population, and population for the 5 places remained the same. During 2000-2010, Fort Worth city gained the most population (206,512), followed by San Antonio (176,872), Houston (145,820), Austin (122,759), El Paso (85,459), Frisco city (83,275), and McKinney (76,748). Galveston city lost the most population (9,504), Hobby Center for Public Policy 32 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 followed by Windemere CDP (5,831), Fort Hood CDP (4,122), and Port Arthur 3,937). During 2000-2010, 634 places gained population due to net in-migration, and 849 places lost population due to net out-migration. There are two places that did not lose or gain population due to net migration. It is difficult to accurately measure migration levels for places because it is necessary to estimate births and deaths for small places for which vital statistics data are not available. Migration levels and rates are therefore particularly speculative for small places. Thus, although limited in several ways, the estimates of net migration for places show several important patterns. For example, they suggest that, unlike overall population change, net migration was not simply a function of the size of the place. The city with the highest in-migration was Fort Worth (128,554), followed by Frisco (68,534), McKinney (68,098), Pearland (43,437), League City (32,508), San Antonio (31,451), and The Woodlands (30,480). Houston and Dallas, the two largest cities in Texas, experienced net out-migration. Houston experienced net out-migration of 206,407 and Dallas experienced net out-migration of 157,558. The other relatively large cities and places which experienced net out-migration were El Paso (21,447), Irving (16,908), and Garland (16,115). In general however, net migration, like total population growth, was extensive in places in Texas. Towns and cities in Texas have shown population growth due to net migration during the 2000-2010. Natural increase played an important role for population growth for some cities and places as well. Without natural growth some of the cities would have lost population because of net outmigration. Hobby Center for Public Policy 33 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 VI. Conclusions The post-2000 population patterns in Texas are ones which show substantial population growth in the State, and in a large majority of Council of Governments regions, Metropolitan Statistical Areas, counties, and Places. The annual rate of population growth in Texas has slowed during the 2000-2010 (20.6 percent) period compared with 22.8 percent during 1990-2000 but is still higher than the national rate of growth. One must be careful to note that patterns based on only a few years may change quickly. The patterns of 2000-2010, however, suggest that Texas population is growing at a level that is substantially higher than the potential rate of growth, for the Nation and all but a handful of other States. Texas’ population also diversified extensively; the proportion of Anglo population has decreased from 60.6 percent in 1990 to 45.3 percent in 2010. The proportion of Hispanic population has increased from 32.0 percent in 2000 to 37.6 percent in 2010. In 2010, more than fifty three percent of Texans are minority (i.e., Black, Hispanic, and Others). The median age of Texas population has increased from 32.3 in 2000 to 33.6 years in 2010. The proportion of population 65 years of age and above has increased from 9.9 in 2000 to 10.4 in 2010. However, there are significant differences by racial/ethnic categories. All of these changes have significant implications for education, the labor force, health services, and the polity. One may ask, whether such growth will continue in the future. It is impossible to predict future patterns with absolute accuracy, but the fact that such a large part of Texas population growth is due to natural increase (which tends to change relatively slowly) suggests that population growth will likely continue, even if the rate of growth Hobby Center for Public Policy 34 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 slows from that observed in the past. Texas may thus be expected to remain among those states with the largest numerical increase in population and to continue to be among the Nation's fastest growing States in the coming years. Hobby Center for Public Policy 35 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010 VII. References [1] Rowland, Donald (2003). Demographic Methods and Concepts. Oxford University Press. New York. [2] U.S. Census Bureau (2002). Census 2000 Basics. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. [3] U.S. Census Bureau (2001). 2000 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94171, Machine-readable data files), U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C [4] U.S. Census Bureau (2011). 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94171, Machine-readable data files), U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C [5] McKibben, Jerome (2008). “Racial and Ethnic Composition”. Chapter 8, Pp. 175190 in J. S. Siegel and D. A. Swanson (eds.), Methods and Materials of Demography (2nd edition). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. UK. [6] Hobbs, Frank (2008). “Age and Sex Composition”. Chapter 7, Pp. 125-173 in J. S. Siegel and D. A. Swanson (eds.), Methods and Materials of Demography (2nd edition). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. UK. [7] Howden, L. and J. Meyer (2011). “Age and Sex Composition: 2010”. 2010 Census Briefs. U.S. Department of Commerce. Economic and Statistics Administration. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. 2003 [8] U.S. Census Bureau (2011). 2000 Census Summary File 1 (Machine-readable data files), U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C [9] U.S. Census Bureau (2011). 2010 Census Summary File 1 (Machine-readable data files), U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C [10] Office of Management and Budget. 2003. OMB Bulletin No. 03-04: Revised Definitions of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, New Definitions of Micropolitan Statistical Areas and Combined Statistical Areas, and Guidance on Uses of the Statistical Definitions of These Areas. Avaialable online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins_b03-04/ [11] Plane, David (2008). “Population Distribution-Geographic Areas”. Chapter 5, pp. 81-104 in J. S. Siegel and D. A. Swanson (eds.), Methods and Materials of Demography (2nd edition). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. UK. Hobby Center for Public Policy 36 Texas Population: Changes in Size, Composition, and Distribution, 2000-2010